NIH Director calls off NIDA-NIAAA merger

Two years ago, the National Institutes of Healths Scientific Management Review Board (SMRB) issued a report recommending that NIH move to establish a new institute focused on substance use, abuse, and addiction-related research to optimize NIH research in these areas. The idea was to combine the two existing addiction research agencies: the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA). Skeptics like myself wondered if it would ever happen.And now we have our answerno, its not going to happen. (NIH'S Collins)-->

Score one for the alcohol researchers, who mostly opposed the merger from the start, viewing it more of a hostile takeover. NIAAA has always been the weaker sister in the addiction research family. With only half of NIDAs billion-dollar budget, NIAAA deals strictly with alcohol research, even if the NIAAA has at times seemed unsure of what constitutes its main area of studyalcohol the addictive drug, or alcohol the healthy beverage. The merger would have represented a recognition that alcohol is just another drug, albeit a legal one.

It was an obvious thing to do. Former NIH director Harold Varmus had complained that the sprawl was hobbling NIHs ability to respond to new science.

However, in a Science (sub req) interview that year, Francis Collins, the current director of the NIH, said: I guess most people would have said, Well yeah, of course. But when you look at the details. and you consider that alcohol is after all a legal substance and 90% of us at some point in our lives are comfortable with taking it in while the drug abuse institute is largely focused on drugs that are not legal. So there's a personality of the institute issue here that people thought might be important to preserve, others thought would be good not to preserve.

It did not take long for the fraternity of alcohol researchers to view the potential move with alarm. Acting NIAAA director Dr. Kenneth Warren offered up what has come to be seen as the basic counter-argument: The best way forward is a structure that increases collaboration all across NIH nothing is gained by structural merger. Warren said he favored a separate, but equal pair of agencies. Alcoholism is a much broader issue than simply addiction.

Here is where it starts to get tricky. The assertion that alcoholism is not simply an addiction distills the disagreement down to its essence, which can be found not so much within the arena of science as within the arenas of morality, ethics, and the law.

On Friday, the traditional time for troubling news announcements in the media world, the NIH released its statement from Director Collins: After rigorous review and extensive consultation with stakeholders, I have concluded that it is more appropriate for NIH to pursue functional integration, rather than major structural reorganization, to advance substance use, abuse, and addiction-related research.

Collins added: The time, energy, and resources required for a major structural reorganization are not warranted, especially given that functional integration promises to achieve equivalent scientific and public health objectives.

But the smooth and cost-effective advance of addiction science may have met a stumbling block in the directors refusal to do the obvious, and streamline the crucial research on drugs and addiction performed by the nations premier medical research agency, the NIH. As one observer commented, there are rumors that the alcohol beverage industry is lobbying Kentucky politicians, including U.S. Rep. Hal Rogers, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, to keep the institutes separate because it doesnt want alcohol to be associated with cocaine.